12SAD122R0003 Amendment 4 Responses.pdf

RFP#12SAD122R0003

SURPASS

Amendment 4 – Responses to Vendor Questions

60) Could the government please confirm that Joint Ventures, within SBA’s approved mentor-protégé program, will be considered an SDVOSB under this solicitation in accordance with 13 CFR § 121.103(h)(1)(ii), titled “Size of Joint Ventures”, as long as the protégé member is a certified SDVSOB?

Government’s Response: Correct. A JV and mentor-protégé that has been fully approved by the SBA and certified before the RFP due date and the supporting SBA agreement, etc. may submitted, but the supporting SBA documentation and agreement must be submitted along with the proposal.

Here is the language from the 13 CFR that we are referring to:

13 CFR § 121.103(h)(1)(ii), titled “Size of Joint Ventures”, it states that the joint venture with SBA’s approved mentor-protégé relationship adheres to the size of the protégé as long as the protégé qualifies as a small business for the assigned NAICS code. The exact clause is below:

“Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and protégé under § 125.9 of this chapter may joint venture as a small business for any Federal government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement, and the joint venture meets the requirements of § 124.513 (c) and (d), § 125.8(b) and (c), § 125.18(b)(2) and (3), § 126.616(c) and (d), or § 127.506(c) and (d) of this chapter, as appropriate.”

Additionally, here is similar language from SBA’s website:

o https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/sba-mentor-protege-program o Under Program Benefits: “A mentor and its protégé can joint venture as a small business for any small business contract, provided the protégé individually qualifies as small. The joint venture may also pursue any type of set-aside contract for which the protégé qualifies, including contracts set aside for 8(a), service-disabled veteran-owned, women-owned, and HUBZone businesses. Visit the Joint Venture program page more information.”

61) USDA’s response to Vendor Question 1 in Amendment 2, states that numerous meetings, presentations, and product assessments have been conducted going back to the original RFI in May 2020. Based on the original RFI we researched, identified a Cloud-based SaaS solution, and formed a team. For the past two years our team has invested valuable time, effort, and money in responding to USDA requests including an independent assessment by the USDA IT Department completed as recent as https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/sba-https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/sba-

12/10/21. At no time during this period did USDA indicate they were seeking or preferred a small business to provide a UNIFI replacement system. Only with the radically modified final SURPASS RFP did USDA suggest they preferred a small business and in fact intended to limit the procurement to small businesses. Can USDA explain why the radical change?

Government’s response: Through the RFI process, the USDA was seeking industry feedback for market research. While USDA RD Contracting sympathizes with your company’s plight, market research requests should never be construed as anything other than market research.

Concerning USDA’s policy regarding small business set-asides, there has not been a radical change. USDA adheres to FAR Part 19, which implements the acquisition-related sections of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631, et seq.), applicable sections of the Armed Services Procurement Act (10 U.S.C. 2302, et seq.), 41 U.S.C.

3104, and Executive Order 12138, May 18, 1979.

The current USDA’s current acquisition policy is for acquisitions exceeding $3,000 ($15,000 or more for acquisitions as described in 13.201(g)(1)) be set aside for small business concerns when there is a reasonable expectation that (1) offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns; and (2) award could be made at fair market prices unless:

• The requirement could be fulfilled through required sources, (FAR Part 8) or

• The requirement is currently being performed by an 8(a) participant or SBA has accepted that requirement for performance under the authority of the Section 8(a) program.

However, neither of the two exceptions above have been met.

It has not been substantiated that a small business set aside is not warranted and therefore, the CO is following the current policy.

62) In response to question 2 of Amendment 2, the subsequent Amendment 1 action, and response to question 16, USDA has in essence turned the contract into a small business set-aside without stating it. Furthermore, the current RFP structure and procurement strategy eliminates an evaluation of the UNIFI functional requirements.

Are we correct in our assessment that, even if a more qualified vendor and solution are available, USDA intends to select a Small Business even if the vendor may not propose a viable UNIFI replacement solution?

Government’s response: The USDA Contracting Officer is proceeding as required regarding small business participation and acquisition strategy. The procurement strategy does not eliminate an evaluation of the acquisition functional requirements.

Only a responsible vendor who meets a Satisfactory or higher confidence level will be eligible for an award. Satisfactory Confidence means that the Government has satisfactory confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

A USDA RD SAD Team CO will not award any acquisition effort based exclusively on socio-economic status.

63) In response to question 19 and as a result of Amendment 1, the down-select process could possibly result in the selection of a vendor without a viable UNIFI replacement system because Phase I doesn’t include a UNIFI Functional Business Requirement evaluation. Additionally, USDA’s position regarding past performance could result in a down-select of a small business without evidence they have a viable UNIFI solution. Meanwhile based on these issues are we correct that a large business with a Cloud based LOS with 35 active clients meeting 85% of the requirements that can be fully operational in 12 months for a fraction of the contract budget could be eliminated?

Government’s response: No, the down-select process will not result in the selection of a vendor without a viable system solution that meets or exceeds SURPASS requirements.

An Offeror will not be selected only based on phase one. A full proposal must be submitted on phase two to those responsible Offerors invited to phase two.

If only small businesses are invited for phase two, an award will only take place if (1) adequate competition has taken place between two or more qualified responsible business concerns that submitted phase two proposals and (2) the intended awardee is a responsible vendor who meets a Satisfactory or higher confidence level.

Satisfactory Confidence means that the Government has satisfactory confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

If an award cannot take place exclusively with small business concerns after phase two evaluations have concluded, if only small business concerns are asked to participate in the phase two, then the other than small business (large business concerns) deemed responsible from phase one will be notified to submit phase two at that time.

64) USDA’s response to question 27, indicates that a government contractor with extensive similar software implementation, integration, and operations support experience with a subcontractor providing a proven Cloud-based LOS software can’t be selected for the contract because the software vendor is a subcontractor. Would that in fact not eliminate any small business as well?

Government’s response: This question is not clear. The USDA will be contracting with the Prime and not any subcontractor. Therefore, it is essential that the Prime be able to fulfill the requirements based on its proposal response regardless as to who the Prime purports to be its subcontractor.

65) Finally, the correction indicated in the response to Question 20 and the specificity of the original RFP language along with the observation of a possible incumbent in Question 9 leads one to believe USDA has a preferred vendor in mind and isn’t conducting a fair and open competition.

Government’s response: Your assumption is incorrect. USDA does not have any preferred vendor in mind. We have structured this acquisition to give fair opportunity to all vendors in accordance with USDA Acquisition Policy and the market research that was conducted.

66) Given the significant impact of the radical changes in this procurement from a SaaS Cloud-based LOS replacement to a preferred long term small business software development contract and the many significant issues listed above regarding the structure of the procurement, we are of the opinion this procurement will likely be protested.

Government’s Response: What is the question? There has not been any radical change. Market research assisted in USDA developing its SURPASS requirements.

Please do not confuse the previous market research efforts with any resulting solution requirement decision. There is no preference for a long-term small business software development contract. The USDA Contracting Officer is proceeding as required regarding small business participation and acquisition strategy and the intent is to award a best value contract to a responsible vendor.

67) By when does the Government anticipate finalizing its review of Phase 1 responses and decide on which bidders have been selected to move forward to Phase 2?

Government’s Response: The timeframe cannot be determined at this time.

68) If selected to move forward, when is the anticipated due date for Phase 2 submission?

Government’s Response: The timeframe cannot be determined at this time.

69) The original deadline for questions was August 15 @3:00pm ET. With the new Phase approach, will the Government allow for additional questions post 8/15?

Government’s Response: Phase 1 period closed on August 10, 2022. There will be a Phase 2 question period, which will be determined at a later date.

70) Is it correct to assume that the USDA intends to own all IP for software/SaaS custom-developed specifically for this engagement versus all IP for the underlying COTS software components provided for this engagement? The latter is not a commercially reasonable requirement.

Government’s Response: The Government would own all IP custom developed and/or configured specifically for this project. Any COTS software included in the solution would be licensed according to common software licensing practices. See FAR 52.227-19 Commercial Computer software license.

71) Where is origination currently done for Section 504 loans/grants for repairs, and Section 304 waste water disposal grants? Are they in UNIFI today?

Government’s Response: Yes

72) Are the requirements for section 504 loans/grants for repairs, and Section 304 waste water disposal grants, considered essential for the MVP release of the LOS?

Government’s Response: Yes

73) For the purposes of the MVP and DME, can you define the difference between a COTS solution and an “Integrated product solution”, as mentioned in the PWS?

Government’s Response: The term COTS solution, as utilized in the SURPASS PWS, refers to products that are native to Loan Origination (i.e., LOS COTS products). The term Integrated Product Solution refers to software that is not native to LOS but can be configured to deliver the detailed requirements. Additionally, the term COTS refers to commercial off the self products that could be used in an integrated product solution. For example, RD uses FICO Blaze, a COTS product, in integrated product solutions to provide an automated underwriting function/capability.

74) If price, development effort, and O&M costs were comparable, does RD have a preference for a COTS LOS solution or a custom or semi-custom system that would capitalize on existing investments in Salesforce? If so, what are the reasons?

Government’s Response: The Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud requirements including obtaining FedRAMP Authorization status for non- FedRAMP’d solutions as applicable.

75) Contract award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal provides the overall best value to the Government for meeting the requirements. Our understanding is that “FedRAMP Ready” status requires a nearly completed system plus 3-months of O&M. However, the solicitation outlines a year-1 PoP to build and deploy MVP. Can the government elaborate on how the 180-day deadline was identified and/or reconcile the configuration/development timeline vs. FedRamp ready timeline? It seems impossible to develop and deploy and MVP, and reach 3 months of O&M, within 180 days of award. Will the government consider a technology solution that includes a multi-tenant environment, in which services are being shared among a customer base in the platform?

Government’s Response: Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud requirements including obtaining FedRAMP Authorization status for non-FedRAMP’d solutions as applicable. The MVP is a release-ready configurations and code that meet all MVP defined requirements. Delivery of the MVP solution would be available in (1) Development; (2) Test; (3) Lender Testing Environment; and (4) Cert and Production (if FedRAMP Authorization in place) within 12 months for a COTS solution or within 18 months for an Integrated Solution.

76) Could the government provide additional information on the FedRAMP Service Model it wishes to be authorized against (e.g., PaaS vs. SaaS)?

Government’s Response: Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud requirements including obtaining FedRAMP Authorization status for non-FedRAMP’d solutions as applicable. The FedRAMP service model will depend on the proposed solution.

77) The FedRAMP Marketplace currently contains several Cloud-based Digital Platforms that include application plugin ecosystems. Would it be acceptable to the government for the offeror's solution to be based on a FedRAMP Moderate PaaS offering with a re-usable application plugin?

Government’s Response: Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud requirements including obtaining FedRAMP Authorization status for non-FedRAMP’d solutions as applicable.

78) Would a FISMA Moderate or FISMA High Vendor-Owned hosted data center be an acceptable alternative to the FedRamp requirement?

Government’s Response: No. The Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud

79) Will the USDA accept FedRAMP alternative environment such as SOC 1 & SOC 2 controls aligned with NIST certification, etc.?

Government’s Response: No. The Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud

80) Understanding your agency and leadership commitment to increasing small business participation and small business awards; please consider allowing small business to include MAJOR subcontractor past performance as part of their submission. Given the volume and complexity of this work, requiring SB only use their past experience seems inadvertently prohibitive and limits competition

Government’s Response: The USDA Contracting Officer is proceeding as required regarding small business participation and acquisition strategy. The proposal instructions remain as is.

81) The past performance of an offeror’s parent or sister companies is often referred to as “affiliate past performance,” or “APP”. Government contracting agencies often find great benefit in crediting APP, including:

• Increased competition by making offerors eligible who have relevant past performance in their affiliates – and who may not invest the proposal costs in bidding unless they know that APP will be credited.

• Access to the resources of an offeror’s entire enterprise

• The advantage of the agency leaving itself the discretion to credit APP, but only where the offeror has earned it by demonstrating the affiliate’s meaningful involvement in contract performance

The procurement rules specifically endorse the Government retaining the discretion to credit the past performance of a predecessor or affiliate company. See, e.g., GM– Bulltrack, B- 414591.6, B- 414591.7 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018) (“The relevant consideration is whether the resources of an affiliated company - its workforce, management, facilities or other resources - will be provided or relied upon for contract performance, such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance”).

APP is quite similar to the Government crediting subcontractor and joint venture member past performance. Subs and JV members are companies not in privity of contract with the Government, but the Government typically does not question giving past performance credit for their work. With APP, the offeror must meet an even more exacting standard in showing its affiliate will meaningfully contribute to contract performance.

QUESTION: Will the Government please modify the RFP to permit the agency to credit past performance of the Offeror’s related companies (e.g., parent company, other subsidiaries of that parent company) so long as the Offeror describes in its proposal the meaningful contribution that the related company will make to performance of the contract?

Government’s Response: No.

82) We need clarity on your FedRAMP requirements. You are asking for FedRAMP moderate. Our solution aligns with the requirements of FedRAMP moderate. We comply with NIST 800-53 controls and are SOC1 & SOC 2, PCI-DSS and HIPAA- HITECH compliant. Is this acceptable?

Government’s Response: No. The Government is seeking a cloud-based solution that utilizes COTS and/or COTS integrated solution that meets all security cloud

83) Can we assume that the government intends that all new custom-developed software for this Program be 508-compliant, as it is not commercially reasonable for established Enterprise COTS software to be 100% compliant?

Government’s Response: Compliance the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.

749d) as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) Revised Section 508 Standards is mandatory for all Federal Agencies. For every Information and Communication Technology (ICT) the Government is required to ensure full accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities. ICT refers to all software in the solution used to present information to a user as part of using the solution. If any part of the solution fails 508 testing, then the solution must be fixed to become compliant with the Revised Section 508 standards at no additional cost to the Government. These fixes could be provided as part of regularly scheduled maintenance release and must be agreed to by the Government